User:Aradl284/Cherie Dimaline/Jfox252 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Aradl284, Medwa823, Jkint568
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Aradl284/Cherie Dimaline

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Mostly.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It could use more concision, which could be largely achieved by shifting some of the information contained in the lead to other sections of the article.

Lead evaluation
I think the lead contains information that may be better suited for other sections of the article. For example, because a standalone section for Awards has been added to the article, some of the references to awards in the lead can probably be moved to that section. More generally, it's a bit hard to see a distinction between the lead and the Biography section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The Bibliography section and photo appear to be gone in the draft version of the article I'm evaluating.

Content evaluation
It's hard to tell, based on the sandbox draft, if and/or how some of the content in the existing article will be merged with the new content (i.e. the bibliography section, the Acclaim section, the photo of Dimaline, etc.). Have to watch for redundancy and repetition. For example, the praise and awards for The Marrow Thieves (which should be italicized in the article) is mentioned in the lead, biography, awards, and reception sections.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
I don't get any sense of bias or persuasion from the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Looks like it, yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? While it's hard for me to say without doing the research myself, but it seems fine.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Obviously this is just a draft, but it would certainly be easier to evaluate the sources and references if there was a reference section with hyperlinks.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Generally, yes. Although the line, "Cherie became sort of a jack of all trades" stood out as perhaps needing a change, as well as replacing "dad" with "father."
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A couple very minor punctuation spots.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections themselves reflect major points of the topic, yes, but I think they could be reorganized for more fluidity.

Organization evaluation
The order of the sections could be rearranged in a way that improves the flow of the article. For example, I think the Reception and Awards sections should be paired together, with the former coming before the latter, and both should come after Community Involvement. I think the bibliography section often comes last on most author wiki articles too, if the intention is to keep it intact from the existing article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No images added, but the image on the existing article isn't in the sandbox. I assume, though, that that's only because this is a draft.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? More information about Dimaline's background and the variety of work she does/has done.
 * How can the content added be improved? Avoiding repetition, shift pieces of information to more appropriate sections of the article, and rearranging the order of the article's sections.

Overall evaluation
As previously mentioned, I think the biggest thing is reorganizing the order of information to improve the flow of the article. I also think transferring some of the information found in the lead into other sections would help, namely the mentions of awards.